Skip to main content

Mental Illness Reporting Standards (UK)

Samaritans, Mind and Rethink Mental Illness guidance, IPSO Clause 1 and Clause 12, and practical standards on language, framing and consent when reporting mental illness in the UK.

Last reviewed: Next review due:

1. The Regulatory and Ethical Framework

Reporting on mental illness sits at the intersection of two IPSO Editors’ Code obligations. Clause 1 (Accuracy) requires the press to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and to distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact. Clause 12 (Discrimination) requires publications to avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s physical or mental illness or disability, and states that such details must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

Beyond the Code, three charities set the practical standard. The Samaritans Media Guidelines are the reference point wherever mental illness intersects with suicide and self-harm. Mind and Rethink Mental Illness publish media guidance on language and framing, building on the legacy of the Time to Change anti-stigma campaign the two charities ran together.

For broadcasters, Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code applies the same underlying principles through its rules on harm, offence, fairness and the treatment of vulnerable contributors. The NUJ Code of Conduct adds a duty to report only relevant references to a person’s health. Where mental illness and suicide overlap, this guide should be read alongside our suicide reporting guide.

2. Responsible Language

Language choices carry clinical and social weight. The guidance below reflects the shared position of Samaritans, Mind, Rethink Mental Illness and the legacy Time to Change advice.

Avoid "committed suicide"

The verb "commit" implies a crime; suicide has not been a criminal offence in England and Wales since the Suicide Act 1961. Use "died by suicide" or "took their own life" instead.

Do not use diagnoses as adjectives

Avoid "schizophrenic" or "psychotic" as casual descriptors for something changeable or erratic. These are clinical conditions, not synonyms for unpredictability, and such usage stigmatises the people who live with them.

Describe the person, not the label

Prefer "a person with schizophrenia" or "someone diagnosed with bipolar disorder" over "a schizophrenic" or "a manic depressive". Person-first language avoids reducing an individual to a condition.

Avoid loaded or sensational terms

Words such as "psycho", "maniac", "unhinged", "nutter" or "mental patient" are pejorative and can breach IPSO Clause 12. Neutral, specific language is both more accurate and more humane.

Attribute clinical claims

Do not assert a diagnosis a person has not disclosed, and do not infer one from behaviour. Where clinical detail is relevant, attribute it to a named expert, a court finding, or the person themselves.

3. Mental Illness, Violence and Crime

The most persistent stigmatising pattern in news coverage is the implied link between mental illness and violence. Mental health charities and research bodies consistently emphasise that people with mental illness are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators, and that most violence in society is not attributable to mental illness. Coverage that foregrounds a “mental patient” angle in a violent crime story can entrench that false association.

In practice, a defendant’s or suspect’s mental health history should only be reported where it is genuinely relevant to the offence or the proceedings — for example where a court has considered fitness to plead, made a hospital order, or heard psychiatric evidence. Introducing a diagnosis that has no bearing on the case risks breaching IPSO Clause 12 and distorts the story by substituting a label for the facts.

When reporting crime, apply the same relevance test you would use for any protected characteristic. See our crime reporting guidance for the wider framework on suspects, charges and identification.

4. Where Mental Illness Meets Suicide

Many stories about mental illness touch on suicide or self-harm, and this is where the Samaritans Media Guidelines are indispensable. The guidelines advise against describing methods in detail, avoiding prominent placement or sensational headlines, refraining from presenting suicide as an understandable response to circumstances, and always including sources of support. IPSO also applies Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) to inquest and bereavement coverage.

Because this overlap has its own detailed conventions — on method detail, monitoring reader response, and signposting helplines — the full treatment lives in our dedicated suicide reporting guide. Read the two together whenever a mental illness story involves a death, an attempt, or self-harm.

5. Consent and Capacity

Interviewing someone who is unwell raises questions of informed consent and capacity. A person who is acutely unwell, in a clinical setting, or detained under the Mental Health Act may not be in a position to weigh the consequences of being interviewed and identified. Journalists should explain clearly how material will be used, confirm the person understands, and make it easy to withdraw consent.

The Editors’ Code contains specific protections for vulnerable individuals, and Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code addresses fairness and consent for contributors who may not fully understand what taking part involves. Where appropriate, involve a carer, advocate or support organisation, and keep a clear record of how and when consent was obtained.

The same care applies to trauma. See our reporting trauma guide for interview technique with people in distress, and our health and NHS reporting guide for the wider clinical context.

6. Red Flags

  • Writing that a person "committed suicide" rather than "died by suicide"
  • Using "schizophrenic", "psychotic", "psycho" or "maniac" as casual adjectives
  • Implying a causal link between mental illness and violent crime without evidence
  • Citing a suspect or defendant's mental health history where it is not relevant to the offence
  • Asserting or inferring a diagnosis the person has not disclosed
  • Interviewing an acutely unwell person without checking capacity to consent
  • Sensational headlines or intrusive images that identify a person in crisis

7. Mental Illness Reporting Checklist

Ethics & Language Tools

Cross-check any mental illness reference against the Samaritans overlap in the suicide reporting guide, and use the Ethics Flowchart to test whether a health detail is genuinely relevant.

9. Common Mistakes

  • Treating a diagnosis as a news hook: A person's mental illness is not, in itself, a story. Reaching for a diagnosis to explain behaviour substitutes a label for reporting and risks breaching Clause 12.
  • Confusing conditions: Bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, personality disorders and psychosis are distinct. Using them interchangeably, or describing everyday mood as "bipolar", is inaccurate under Clause 1.
  • Framing recovery as inspiration or tragedy: As with disability coverage, "brave battle" and "tragic decline" narratives flatten a complex reality. Report what the person says about their own experience.
  • Omitting support information: Where a story could distress readers who are struggling, the absence of a helpline or signpost is itself an editorial failing, especially where suicide or self-harm is involved.

10. Primary Sources

Frequently Asked Questions

Should journalists write that someone "committed suicide"?
No. The phrase "committed suicide" dates from when suicide was a criminal offence in England and Wales, which ended with the Suicide Act 1961. Samaritans and mental health charities recommend neutral alternatives such as "died by suicide" or "took their own life". The language matters because stigmatising or sensational framing can deter people from seeking help. Where a death by suicide involves a person with a mental illness, follow the Samaritans Media Guidelines and consult our suicide reporting guide, which covers method detail, prominence and support-line signposting in more depth.
Is it acceptable to describe someone as "schizophrenic" or "psychotic"?
Using clinical terms as casual adjectives — for example calling a market or the weather "schizophrenic", or a person "psychotic" to mean unpredictable — is both inaccurate and stigmatising. Where a diagnosis is genuinely relevant, describe the person as living with or diagnosed with the condition rather than labelling them by it: "a person with schizophrenia" rather than "a schizophrenic". Mind, Rethink Mental Illness and the legacy Time to Change guidance all advise against diagnostic labels used pejoratively. IPSO Clause 12 also prohibits prejudicial or pejorative reference to a person's mental illness.
When is a person's mental illness relevant to a story?
Under IPSO Clause 12, an individual's mental illness should only be referenced where it is genuinely relevant to the story. In crime reporting in particular, mentioning a suspect's or defendant's mental health history where it has no bearing on the offence risks breaching the Code and reinforcing a false link between mental illness and violence. Relevance is highest where a court has made a specific finding — for example on fitness to plead or a hospital order — or where the person has chosen to speak publicly about their condition. When in doubt, ask whether the detail informs the reader or merely labels the subject.
Does linking mental illness to violence cause harm?
Yes. Mental health charities and research bodies consistently note that people with mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators, and that most violence is not attributable to mental illness. Headlines that foreground a "mental patient" angle in violent crime stories can entrench stigma and discourage people from seeking treatment. Journalists should avoid causal framing that is not supported by evidence, attribute any clinical claims to named experts, and give proportionate weight to the facts of a case rather than to a diagnosis.
What should I consider before interviewing someone who is unwell?
Consider whether the person has the capacity to give informed consent to being interviewed and identified, particularly if they are acutely unwell or in a clinical setting. Explain clearly how the material will be used and that they can withdraw. Avoid approaches that could exploit distress or intrude during a mental health crisis. The Editors' Code contains specific protections for vulnerable individuals, and Ofcom's Broadcasting Code addresses fairness and consent for contributors who may not fully understand the consequences of taking part. Where appropriate, involve a carer, advocate or support organisation, and record how consent was obtained.

Primary sources

Related guides